HDTV downloads: how much would you pay?
By Kevin C. Tofel 
posted Oct 13th 2005 1:03PM
posted Oct 13th 2005 1:03PM
I was doing some math this morning and basically got a headache.
Maybe you folks can help me out. The new iTunes video content costs
$1.99 and you can see for yourself what that gets you over at The Unofficial Apple Weblog.
That's two bucks for QVGA or 320 x 240 resolution and no commercials.
Let's ignore the BitTorrent sites that offer television and any other
"questionable sources" of content for a moment.If iTunes (or HDNet, Microsoft, or anyone for that matter) were to offer high-definition content of recent television shows, what would you pay? The average 720p format offers about 921,600 pixels per frame. That's about twelve times the pixels of QVGA, but I'm betting that you don't want to pay twelve times the price. Would you purchase HD content for two times the price? Four times? How about it? Maybe if we do some market research we can spur along iTunes 7.0!
Not more than $3 an episode and/or $45 a season.
And do it NOW and finish off this machismo next-gen format showdown (BR v HDVD).
I'd pay the same price. Maby a buck more if there's band width concerns.
I would consider paying roughly $5 for an hour episode, maybe 3$ for a half hour episode. I'ld much rather be able to pre-purchase a whole season (for like $30-$50) and download them as they become available.
For HD content, I'd pay $3.99-$4.99 depending on what it is. I'd pay more for sports in HD, especially out of market events I can't see on my own cable system.
I'm not willing to pay for individual shows, except in "emergency" situations (like when my parents turned off my VCR so it didn't record that episode of 24 I missed while I was out with my wife). Since I rarely watch a TV show more than once, I'm not interested in "owning" TV.
I'd be much more interested in a subscription service for HDTV over broadband. $40/month, including set top box rental, sounds nice. I wouldn't even mind if the shows were delayed a day.
Since all of these issues revolve around license not ownership and 'fair use' why would we even discuss the cost of HD content versus not? If it is $1.99 an hour/episode it should be that price regardless of QVGA, DVD, or HD resolution... it is a license to 'view' the content after all.
I want two options: The first would be a paid subscription for a series. I would have a subscription to a show, not unlike a podcast, where the show is automatically downloaded to iTunes as soon as it's available for a fee of, oh $30-$40 per series. The second option is the a la carte option. I missed last night's episode of "Lost", so I'll pay $5 for my HD version of that specific episode.
NewsLeecher: $29.95 (one time) - http://newsleecher.com/
Unlimited Newsgroups Account: $14.95 - http://newshosting.com/
Newzbin Account (for easy file location): $2 - http://www.newzbin.com/
So, I'm not willing to pay much more on top of that. We're probably just a few months away from someone making something very simple to use out of those three services. It's all there, someone with some guts and knowhow just needs to wrap it all together. You've got data from Newzbin, files from any newsgroups service, and metadata from places like tv.com and what-have-you. It's literally ready and raring to go.
I would pay $4.99 an episode for HD versions.
-Owl
We shouldn't have to pay any extra for HD. Same content, just more pixels.
subscription model might work best. providers would offer numbered allocations for different amts. for example i would pay for the following:
ESPN Package 1 $19.99/month
Unlimited SportsCenter daily downloads (limit # d/l of same show)
10 HD Programs (variable length)
ESPN Package 2 $9.99/month
Unlimited SportsCenter daily downloads (limit # d/l of same show)
5 HD Programs (variable length)
ESPN SC Package $5.99/month
Unlimited SportsCenter daily downloads (limit # d/l of same show)
let the networks pick what they want to provide for unlimited download or otherwise. for shows that are usually only watched once (news, be it sports, entertainment, world, etc.) those programs should be offered free daily with a purchase of a network package. oh and provide the downloads in full HD as well as smaller iPod friendly size downloads. it's a one time cost of time for the networks to create the downloads. automate it and it's an immediate source of revenue at really no additional significant cost.
something along those lines i think would work out well for the providers and for the consumer.
thoughts?
I would gladly pay $4.99 an episode for HD versions of my favorite shows.
I think we really need to beef up our data pipes before we try to cram HD content through them. Even at H.264 bitrates, an "hour-long" episode (which is really 44 minutes after commercials) of a TV show in 720p is going to be about 1.7GB. A two-hour movie would be about 4.6GB. BitTorrent can only do so much to prevent Apple's servers from being slagged by this kind of data delivery.
Let's worry about getting HD discs and DVRs first. The HD iPod is a long way off yet.
I'd pay about the same as the iPod quality video, maybe up to $2.99. Any more than that and it is less expensive to buy the DVD, which may not be timely but is a tangible product that I would own and isn't DRM'd.
I'm with Mike Koch. More pixels doesn't make me any more inclined to pay more.
I would pay $12 for two viewings in HDTV of movies that are in there theatrical release and when that window is over pay an additional $20 in a combined price for permanent archive of movie.
This is the future of HDTV and HD-DVD movies and will be common place in 2 years...
HDTV Movies for purchase after theatrical run is over should cost $5 more than regular DVD's ...
The price for these shows is right, but it should be full standard TV quality at the very least. And in the case of a show like Lost it should be widescreen. HD really is a little too much to ask for in a service like this, but there is no reason that the quality should be less than that of a regular television broadcast. I would gladly pay $2 an episode for a full SDTV quality widescreen version of Lost if it meant not having to watch commercials. I would buy a video out adapter for my laptop, and watch it on my TV. I don't even watch Lost at broadcast because of the commercials, and that it isn't shown widescreen.
I would not watch network series tv for free even in HD but I would be glad to spend $3 to $5 per hour for HD feeds of some of my favorite UK shows... "Time Team" springs to mind History Int. ran the same 13 shows from 2001 an2 ove and over for the last 2 or 3 years but nothing from the back catalog of 76 other shows (at that time) and nothing newer... now they have pulled it from the schud,,, so I ordered the DVDs from the UK but I can not play them as they will reset the zone function in the DVD and lock out all my zone one dvds/// ARGGG so yes offer me product I want/ nich product of uk shows/ and you will be able to milk me till I am dry
I wouldn't pay a dime for HD downloads if I can just as easily rip them off my MythTV box myself.
Why should I pay more on top of my digital cable bill? Fair use is fair use, and if TiVo can do it, so can I.
I personaly would not like a subscription service. If I want that I'll get cable or satelite. I love the on demand and the digital content to own concept. The download is nice since I can get it anytime from anywhere (you have broadband) and also in low res like these are. I also like the ability to search itunes style for content. I love the commercial free idea also.
Back to topic, maybe something like this;
05 cents per minute for 240p (these files)
10 cents per minute for 480p
15 cents per minute for 720p
I would love the choice so i can task it for videopod or tv or computer as i choose.
In order to stop piracy I would price
320/240 for FREE.
640/480 for $1.50
HD (min 720P) for $2.50
I think you are all crazy. For premium TV like an original HBO series I would pay about $1 per episode but for free-to-air TV (even in HD) it should be cheaper. I'd say $0.50 per episode -- a difference enough to compensate for the loss of advertising revenue if it's commerical free.
Why? TV -- unlike music -- is so highly consumable. I watch an episode I'm done with it. It's trash to me at that point (especially with a show like Lost). It's just not the same value as spending $1/song that I could listen to hundreds of times.
That's also why cable costs what it does. You are paying very little for a lot of shows you won't ever watch, not a lot for the few shows that you do actually give your time to. I think the unbundle that will happen with IPTV and these type of distributions mean we still will pay more per show, but I don't mind not subsidizing The Golf Channel.
Well, I think I'll pay in these kind of service something between US$ 6.00 or US$ 10.00, or something like US$ 50.0o per year.
I think the current prices are already too much. I might be swayed into paying over two dollars for extremely popular shows in HD, but otherwise, two bucks is the maximum -- no matter the resolution.
We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the ipod's format is the milestone. It's not. Anything less than SDTV isn't going to budge me; perhaps you should even get the QVGA-version for free when buying a decent resolution version.
--A
I agree with #8. I wouldn't pay any more for HD. It should be priced the same. After all, aren't we really paying for the content of the show, not the format?
Hey, as a sidebar to this conversation, this person did what I think a lot of people were thinking, that is play back an Itunes video (Ivideo?) back on a big screen and seeing what it looked it. He didn't seem to mind so much.
http://tinyurl.com/ctsz7
Check out the screenshot at the end.
$1.00 US